If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Limbaugh: Obama's leading a coup d'etat...no, really this time

There is a split among conservatives between those who think the NSA's collection of data about every phone call in America is an important counterterrorism tool, and those who think President Obama is, as usual, trampling on the constitution and the flag and the Founding Fathers. But Rush Limbaugh takes it one step further. He says Obama is leading a coup d'etat. And this time it's for real.

You know how we know Limbaugh likes that formulation? Because he's said Obama has been leading a coup so many times.

February 26, 2009: "This is not even about politics anymore, folks. This is really not even about politics. I'm going to have to come up with a way of explaining that so you understand what I mean. This is not about politics. It's a political coup, maybe, if you want to look at it that way."

September 23, 2009: "I did refer to this as a coup, a bloodless coup. He has delivered the United States to the global powers without firing a shot."

September 23, 2009: [in a Rush quote roundup] "I would describe what Obama is doing to this country as basically a coup. It's just frightening. He talks about a New World Order, and the New World Order is him. Obama is bigger than his country, bigger than the presidency -- he is the world."

September 30, 2010: A caller said Obama's immigration politics were "the basically coup d'etat tactics." Limbaugh did not disagree. Later, he said, "Bouncing here off the subject of our last caller, the issue here is the dictatorial nature of this regime and Obama's willingness to do anything to advance his agenda."

And that was before all the evidence rolled in! Now all the pieces are falling together. "You know it and I know it," Limbaugh said. "It's peaceful, nonviolent. The military isn't involved. But nevertheless it's a coup."

On Fox News, Ann Coulter, too, added up all the data and concluded this is about something more than counterterrorism: "with the Rosen case and with the AP listening to their phone lines case or tapping to see where they were calling. And that is that the National Security justification was nonsense. It was bunk." (She did not use the c-word.)

Dean Chambers, of Unskewed Polls fame, agrees with Limbaugh, and adds one more piece of data -- "all the tricks and dirty tactics Obama used to be elected in 2008 and reelected last year." He concludes, "That's right lefties, your beloved president Obama was SELECTED, not elected. Selected by the left, put in office by non-violent coup." However, Obama is the democratically-elected leader of the état in question.

And that's why we are also forced to admit that Limbaugh has been on both sides of the coup issue.

June 29, 2009: "Oh, and you know we learned about Honduras? We learned the Obama administration tried to stop the coup. Now, the coup was what many of you wish would happen here without the military."

March 23, 2011: "But is there a contingency plan for -- I don't want to say an anti-American president, 'cause that's gonna cloud my real intent here... Is there a contingency plan to deal with a president who is of the belief that the United States is the problem?"

im amazed at the people here who think limbaugh is just an entertainer and and is a sideshow. take him so seriously when he says something like this. get over yourselfs. if you take anything he says seriously then you are the one with the problem. yes, he is an entertainer and most everything he says is to draw in listeners, so why are you surprised when he calls the administration a "regime"? i have listened to him more than most of you (i spend alot of time in my car and i dont want to spend the $ for satelite radio), so i guess i am his target audience. i dont take him seriously, but neither do most of his listeners, its entertainment.

im amazed at the people here who think limbaugh is just an entertainer and and is a sideshow. take him so seriously when he says something like this. get over yourselfs. if you take anything he says seriously then you are the one with the problem. yes, he is an entertainer and most everything he says is to draw in listeners, so why are you surprised when he calls the administration a "regime"? i have listened to him more than most of you (i spend alot of time in my car and i dont want to spend the $ for satelite radio), so i guess i am his target audience. i dont take him seriously, but neither do most of his listeners, its entertainment.

I disagree Jared. Limbaugh is the face and most powerful influence of the GOP. Republican candidates can't afford to have him against their agenda because of the influence he has over so many. Limbaugh, Schultz, Maddow, etc are all trying to influence voters not entertain them.

You may think he is an entertainer but there are millions who follow his word as if he is a god.

I disagree Jared. Limbaugh is the face and most powerful influence of the GOP. Republican candidates can't afford to have him against their agenda because of the influence he has over so many. Limbaugh, Schultz, Maddow, etc are all trying to influence voters not entertain them.

You may think he is an entertainer but there are millions who follow his word as if he is a god.

i think we are talking about a very small segment of the population who believes what he says. like you said, hannity, maher, maddow, limbaugh they are all the same. people are going to watch/listen to their shows and agree with their slanted views. but at the end of the day, people will believe whats in their conscience. when i listen to these people, sometimes it sways me to their point of view, but that is shortlived.

im amazed at the people here who think limbaugh is just an entertainer and and is a sideshow. take him so seriously when he says something like this. get over yourselfs. if you take anything he says seriously then you are the one with the problem. yes, he is an entertainer and most everything he says is to draw in listeners, so why are you surprised when he calls the administration a "regime"? i have listened to him more than most of you (i spend alot of time in my car and i dont want to spend the $ for satelite radio), so i guess i am his target audience. i dont take him seriously, but neither do most of his listeners, its entertainment.

How exactly is Rush an entertainer? I hear people say that, but they never really explain what he does that distinguishes himself from someone like Hannity. His backround is political, not like Maher or Stewart who are comedians first. He also seems to take himself pretty seriously. I remember a few years ago a politician made a statement much like yours, something along the lines of "you can't take anything he says seriously because he's just an entertainer", and he ended up apologizing the Rush.

im amazed at the people here who think limbaugh is just an entertainer and and is a sideshow. take him so seriously when he says something like this. get over yourselfs. if you take anything he says seriously then you are the one with the problem. yes, he is an entertainer and most everything he says is to draw in listeners, so why are you surprised when he calls the administration a "regime"? i have listened to him more than most of you (i spend alot of time in my car and i dont want to spend the $ for satelite radio), so i guess i am his target audience. i dont take him seriously, but neither do most of his listeners, its entertainment.

He definitely started out as an entertainer only, but no one can say with a straight face that he is still that. The man has the largest audience of any talk show host in the country (maybe the world?), and is by far the most powerful conservative in the U.S. today. What he says ends up sticking with his listeners. That's why he is disliked. There are dozens of other conservative talkers, but no one says a thing about them. Limbaugh has been the single greatest reason why we live in such a hyper-partisan environment right now. The man makes a living by manufacturing hate and discord. I'm not religious, but if there is a hell, I have no doubt they have a nice warm bed waiting for him when he inevitably has a heart attack...

If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
maybe you would never have to hurt again...

He definitely started out as an entertainer only, but no one can say with a straight face that he is still that. The man has the largest audience of any talk show host in the country (maybe the world?), and is by far the most powerful conservative in the U.S. today. What he says ends up sticking with his listeners. That's why he is disliked. There are dozens of other conservative talkers, but no one says a thing about them. Limbaugh has been the single greatest reason why we live in such a hyper-partisan environment right now.

its blanket statements like these where you lose me. there is plenty of blame to go around. rush limbaugh wasnt the first to do this and he wont be the last. you seem to ignore all the things obama does on a daily basis to divide us, yet you want to banish limbaugh to hell. i realize limbaugh has been at it longer than obama, but the liberal media and especially the president have as big of a following.

The man makes a living by manufacturing hate and discord.

have you ever listened to his program? im pretty sure you would say no. well i have and i have also watch chris matthews, bill maher, ed schultz just as often, there is no difference, i promise you.

I'm not religious, but if there is a hell, I have no doubt they have a nice warm bed waiting for him when he inevitably has a heart attack...

wishing death on someone in detail? im not the PHD here, but i think you could figure out the psychology of a person who has those sorts of feelings towards another human.